A Bold & Fair Vision
EU’s Strategic Dialogue on Agriculture report says the right things. Now comes the hard part: acting on them.
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the unbearable heat in southern Italy. Well, these crippling droughts “would have been almost impossible to occur without human-induced climate change,” said a new analysis published this week by World Weather Attribution.
“We thus conclude that this increase in drought severity is primarily driven by the very strong increase in extreme temperatures due to human-induced climate change,” it said.
“In a world 2°C warmer than preindustrial, which could happen as soon as 2050 without large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, droughts like the ones in Sicily and Sardinia will become more frequent.”
Will we stop twiddling our thumbs and get on with the rapid cut in emissions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change? Perhaps, if the powers-that-be in Europe actually implement the recommendations in the report I’m covering this week.
(Also, apologies for typos, etc. I’m operating on four hours’ sleep - no thanks to flight delays, train problems, and exorbitant, surge-pricing taxis.)
On Sep 4 (Wednesday), a 110-page tome outlining the steps needed to make European agriculture fairer, greener, healthier, and more sustainable was published. It’s the culmination of a seven-month process known as the “Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture”. There’s also a 9-page executive summary for the busy people.
Let’s dig into it shall we?
What is the “Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture”?
During her state of the union speech almost exactly a year ago, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, announced the Dialogue, saying such a forum is needed to address growing polarisation between agriculture and nature.
The announcement came at a time when a suite of policies and legislation under the Farm-to-Fork Strategy - much-maligned by Big Ag but supported by civil society groups - were supposed to be published but were then quietly shelved/ postponed/ disappeared into the ether. Advocates of sustainable food systems saw von der Leyen’s annoucement as a sign the executive body was rolling back on green reforms.
The Dialogue was launched in January 2024 and brought together 29 major stakeholders from the European agri-food sectors, civil society, rural communities and academia. These include the powerful farm lobby Copa and Cogeca (who Lighthouse Reports investigated last year), industry groups like FoodDrinkEurope and Fertilizers Europe, green organisations like European Environmental Bureau, and labour reps like the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT).
They were tasked with working on four key issues relating to the prospects of farmers and rural areas, the preservation of planetary boundaries, the opportunities of technology and innovation, and the future of the European food system.
Why is it important?
Because the future of agriculture is intricately linked to our own futures and well-being. For the vast majority of us, agriculture is the basis of our continued existence on this planet. So discussions and debates on this issue affects every single one of us.
Because agriculture has profoundly shaped - and continues to shape - our climate and vice versa. Let me go back to my favourite “unhappy marriage” analogy: how, what, and where we grow food is linked to emissions of greenhouse gas that are heating up the planet, and any slight variations in temperature and precipitation can make or break a harvest.
Because for too long agriculture has been seen through a very narrow lens - efficiency and yields - at the expense of human and planetary health. We urgently need to change this but a small group of people benefitting hugely from the status quo - and thus have amassed more wealth and power than most of us - are fighting tooth and nail against it.
Peter Strohschneider, who chaired the Dialogue, didn’t mince his words when talking about the challenges facing us.
“To put it bluntly, things have developed in such a way that all too often agricultural production and its natural preconditions have become entangled in a lose-lose constellation,” he wrote.
“With a view to the equal necessity of food and natural resources, it is clear, however, that this lose-lose situation cannot be resolved in either direction alone – neither through the promotion of environmentally incompatible food production, nor through environmental protection that ignores the socio-economic conditions of farming, nor through a mere postponement of one or the other.”
Where are we with the Strategic Dialogue now?
Well, its first iteration has now concluded and the result is this report that was “unanimously adopted” by its members on Aug 29, 2024.
The report considers agriculture as part of the entire food system, envisions what a green, thriving European agriculture sector could look like in the next 10 to 15 years, and provides recommendations to Brussels and national governments.
So what does the report say?
Europe is the world’s fastest warming continent and cutting emissions, including from agriculture, is urgent and imperative.
The first of the 10 guiding political principles that members of the Strategic Dialogue produced encapsulated this sentiment: “The time for change is now.”
The report also acknowledges that the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution is putting significant pressure on farming and food.
“Business as usual, be it economic, social or environmental, is not an option… The total cost of inaction for society as a whole will be higher than the cost of transitioning and it will only increase as the necessary steps are delayed,” it said.
A protein transition is necessary.
There are five mentions of “balanced diets” that are healthier and more sustainable, including in the 10 guiding political principles, and many more mentions of “plant-based” products. That might not sound like a lot, but given the recent fierce debates around it, this is a significant shift.
“Improving dietary habits is necessary for consumer’s own well-being, for reasons of public health protection as well as for the benefit of the climate, the environment, animal welfare, and overall resilience of the agri-food system.”
There’s also mention of whether the EU school scheme, where schoolchildren receive fruits, vegetables, milk and certain milk products, “could be upgraded to play a bigger role” in the transition to more sustainable diets.
Considering that a Romanian MEP was once threatened for supporting the provision of plant-based milk for children with lactose intolerance, I’d be keen to see if this suggestion will be taken up!
Reduce dependence on non-renewable, polluting, and costly inputs.
Part of this is about slashing import expenses, particularly for fertiliser, but there is also a recognition that chemical pesticides and fertiliser harm the soil and pollute our air and waters and therefore, use them less.
It also calls for EU leadership to end the “practice of unethical double standards”: the practice of Member States sending toxic pesticides banned within the EU to countries with less stringent regulations. See my Lighthouse Reports colleagues’ investigation into this issue here.
Again, this is significant because Europe has some of the world’s largest agrochemical companies with very strong lobbying power.
Europe’s Food Systems need to be fair and just, and everyone is entitled to a decent income.
There should be targeted support for farmers most in need and socially just working conditions for agricultural workers, who are currently terribly exploited.
Good food should be affordable for all and the most vulnerable consumers should receive support to access it.
“A sustainable, just and inclusive transition of the European agri-food system is the responsibility of the whole of society. It requires a fair distribution of the costs of transition as well as a holistic systems approach that acknowledges and mobilizes the interlinkages between all actors and elements of the system.”
New sources of funding and new bodies to monitor key issues are needed.
The report called for the creation of:
A temporary Agri-food Just Transition Fund outside the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to accelerate the sector’s sustainability transition,
A Nature Restoration Fund to support farmers and other land managers to restore and manage natural habitats, and,
A European Observatory of Agricultural Land to monitor and enhance transparency and cooperation around land transactions.
It also suggested turning this dialogue into a European Board of Agri-Food, a more permanent version.
Tackle the big, fat elephant that is the CAP.
This is probably the most difficult European agricultural polcy to transform, because it is so entrenched, and those that profit from it are also the most powerful, with the ability to block reforms.
Multiple studies and reports have faulted the CAP for many things, chief among them being its lopsided support that benefits big farms and bad behaviour. Yet nothing has really changed, despite it being a massive drain on the EU’s coffers.
So, kudos to members of the Strategic Dialogue for calling for its overhaul.
“The current policy needs to be changed to meet current and future challenges and to accelerate the ongoing transition of agri-food systems towards more sustainable, competitive, profitable, and diverse futures. This is also essential to make the CAP ft for purpose in the context of the EU’s enlargement process.
“Taking this into account, the future CAP should focus on these central objectives: (1) providing socio-economic support targeted to the farmers who need it most; (2) promoting positive environmental, social, and animal welfare outcomes for society; and (3) invigorating enabling conditions for rural areas.”
Economic, environmental, and social sustainability are not mutually exclusive.
“Organic farming, agroecological practices and others can inform and provide helpful building blocks for the alignment of economic, social, and environmental sustainability in Europe.”
“When accompanying the transition, clearly targeted financial tools must not only compensate for income foregone and costs incurred, but also reward ecosystem services. In parallel, farmers will need access to a sufficiently expanded network of independent advisory services.”
“An economically, socially, and ecologically balanced system is less about maximising individual production factors, but rather about optimising benefits in terms of sustainability, resilience, profitability, and greater responsibility, not only for those involved in agriculture, but also for rural communities, civil society, and political actors.”
What does the report NOT say?
It is likely these were not mentioned because they are out of the Strategic Dialogue’s scope or that I’m not as good at speed reading as I think I am, but I noticed some glaring holes. The two biggest are:
Who’s got the power?
There is very little mention of the systemic inequalities and power imbalances built into modern food systems, including in food production.
There’s asymmetry of power between small farmers and big farmers.
There’s asymmetry of power between young farmers - particularly new entrants without much access to land and credit - and old, established ones.
There’s asymmetry of power between farm workers and farm owners.
There’s asymmetry of power between farmers - especially smallholders and indigenous communities - and big buyers (processors, millers, wholesalers, retailers, etc, etc).
There’s asymmetry of power between food service workers (delivery drivers, shelf stackers, servers, cooks, etc) and their employers.
There’s asymmetry of power between us, ordinary people, and the conglomerates whose products line our supermarket shelves.
There’s asymmetry of power between us, ordinary people, and big farm owners whose intensive, industrial-scale farms who use copious amounts of hazardous chemicals.
You get the picture. Yet, I don’t see this being spelled out in the report beyond the talk of workers’ rights, supporting smallholders and making food affordable and accessible. Perhaps it’s all implied. I wish it was more obvious though.
Breaking the Iron Triangle
The chummy, closed loop process of agricultural policymaking in the EU that has been going on for decades is known as “The Iron Triangle”, so-called because decisions are made and agreed between legislative (the European and national parliaments), the executive (national ministries and the Commission) and interest groups.
It’s a fortress that rewards those already in the network but excludes the vast majority of people who are directly affected by these policies - ordinary consumers and small scale farmers.
Academics say this sort of agricultural exceptionalism has slowed down much-need reforms of agricultural policy, like the Farm-to-Fork Strategy which tries to connect agricultural policy with environmental and public health policy.
Again, perhaps this is too much of a political hot potato for the Strategic Dialogue to handle, like above. But hey, a girl can dream, right?
What do others say?
Copa-Cogeca was fairly positive, although its focus is very much on production and competitiveness. It does, however, seem to backtrack a little on livestock farming, saying it is key for rural areas and that “the recommendations on balanced diets… should follow FAO guidelines”. The FAO, however, has come under sustained criticism recently for what critics said was a very timid approach to protein transition (see here and here).
Italian farm union Coldiretti - not part of the Strategic Dialogue - was much less impressed, saying “decisive change of course is needed that is not currently apparent in the document”. It also took issue with the promotion of plant-based products - they are very opposed to alternative proteins - while criticising the exclusion of new genomic techniques.
European Coordination Via Campesina, which represents smallholders, lauded the focus on farmers’ incomes, generation renewal, and access to land.
It also supported calls for CAP to support small- and medium-sized farms and strengthen public advisory systems, particularly on organic and agroecological farming.
However, it pointed out weaknesses: a continued emphasis on competitiveness, European trade policy that contributes to low income for farmers, and a failure to sufficiently address the right to food.
The joint statement from Slow Food and Agroecology Europe was upbeat and summarised the key takeaways.
Labour org EFFAT expressed sentiments close to my heart: “Promising words, concrete actions must follow.”
But The European Institute of Animal Law & Policy is concerned the EU’s promised revision of animal welfare laws will now be further delayed. The Strategic Dialogue is “now asking for more, unnecessary impact assessments and a new timeline for presenting the draft laws – in 2026!”, which will be three years after the original deadline, it said.
We also investigated what happened to these laws last year. You can read our partners’ coverage here and in my newsletter here.
Green groups hailed the report. The European Environmental Bureau called it “a historic consensus” and Ariel Brunner, regional director for BirdLife Europe and Central Asia, spoke of his happiness at the final product in a LinkedIn post.
Four of the above five groups, except the animal welfare organisation, are part of the Strategic Dialogue.
Will it have teeth?
I dearly hope so, because there are a lot of things to like about the report, but at the moment, I’m going to stick to “Who knows?”.
This is partly because a few months ago, we investigated national farm unions across Europe to see if they are really representing the kind of farmers that we think they stand for. We looked at Germany with the daily paper Taz and what we found wasn’t pretty.
“Germany provided a cautionary tale of how a well-intentioned process could end up entrenching a association’s power.
“Taz investigated how one of Germany’s largest farmer associations, Deutsche Bauernverband, backtracked on agreements it had made in a consensus-based commission on the future of agriculture, the Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft (ZKL) set up by the German government in July 2020.
DBV’s behaviour raises questions on how effective the ongoing “Strategic Dialogue on the future of EU Agriculture”, launched by the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, will be, since it is modelled off the ZKL.”
Thin’s Pickings - The Strategic Dialogue Edition
Final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture
Here’s the main report (the recommendations are worth reading) and here’s the 9-page summary.
Strategic Dialogue on Agriculture – what’s in it, what’s next? - ARC2020
Natasha Foote digs deep into the finer details of the report if you’re looking for a good overview.
Europe’s farming lobbies recognise need to eat less meat in shared vision report - The Guardian
Ajit Niranjan’s piece focuses on the balanced diets aspect of the report.
The plan to save European farming - Politico
Paula Andrés on the five key takeaways from the report, including some insights on which recommendations are likely to be taken up more than others.
As always, please feel free to share this post and send tips and thoughts on bluesky (brand new!) @thinink.bsky.social, mastodon @ThinInk@journa.host, my LinkedIn page, twitter @thinink, or via e-mail thin@thin-ink.net.
Great article and nice food photos! I wonder if EU agricultural policy would consider supporting small scale subsistence faming as a way to remove the competitive/financial element and focus entirely on what's good for people and the planet. I know there are some neopeasant farmers across (at least in France) who are trying to farm in a subsistence, but of course struggling. And yeah, maybe that's just a dream, too.